Search

The article discusess various court cases. Topics include Dryden v. Johnson Matthey court case addressing employers negligence and personal injury; Bazley v. Currie court case addressing vicarious liability, and enterprise liability; and Crossley v. Faithful court case addressing reasonable care for the economic well-being of the employees.

Lister v Hesley Hall [2002] 1 AC 215 the House of Lords reformed the law on vicarious liability, in the context of a claim arising over the intentional infliction of harm, by introducing the 'close connection' test. The immediate catalyst was the desire to facilitate recovery of damages on the part of victims of child abuse. The precise form the revision assumed was derived from two Canadian Supreme Court cases: Bazley v Curry [1999] 174 DLR (4th) 45 and Jacobi v Griffiths [1999] 174 DLR (4th) 7. The Canadian jurisprudence contains a detailed review of the policy factors underpinning the law of vicarious liability and expresses the view that the most significant of these is 'enterprise liability'. This article attempts to establish whether enterprise liability holds the same significance in the UK. And, on the assumption that it does, the article goes on to consider any difficulties that may ensue and any further common law reforms that may result. In particular it considers whether the law on vicarious liability for independent contractors is likely to change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the joint criminal enterprise doctrine of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). It is noted that there is no specific reference in the ICTY Statute to criminal liability consistent to the joint criminal enterprise doctrine thus it fell to the judges to identify the new basis of criminal liability. It enumerates the elements of the joint criminal enterprise mode of participation including plurality of persons, existence of a common plan and participation of the accused in the common design. It states the three categories of cases in the joint criminal enterprise doctrine such as co-perpetration, concentration camp and common purpose. It also distinguishes if a joint criminal enterprise is an act of committing, abetting or conspiracy.

Premature dissolution can be a rational corporate response to the threat of future liability. Although early dissolution is costly to a firm, liability may be more so. The way in which liability rules can exacerbate this extreme form of liability avoidance is of interest, since "fly-by-night" firms generate particularly large social costs. In particular, we explore the consequences of liability that is extended to the business partners of an insolvent or absent tortfeasor—a relatively common legal response when tortfeasors abandon obligations. Extended liability can be desirable; however, if extended liability is anticipated, business partners themselves may choose to fly by night. We show how the preferred liability rule, including no liability, depends on the relative costs of premature dissolution and future obligations. The analysis also sheds light on a set of interrelated legal issues, such as the role of the trust fund doctrine and state dissolution statutes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the application of enterprise liability as form of compensation claims for patients who experienced medical negligence from health care providers. It states that through risk-pooling arrangements, hospitals have transferred their liability risk to National Health Service Litigation Authority (NHSLA). It mentions that the NHSLA managed several schemes such as the Clinical Negligence Scheme for Trusts (CNST) and the Existing Liabilities Scheme as ways to combine the costs of liabilities to patients. It says that the use of diagnostic imaging tests served as a reasonable discretionary measure of care that laid down potential influence in liability risk. It adds that management-provided resources affect the diagnostic care.